Recommended Posts

This thread is an example of the first step that needs to be taken. We need to stand up to the Alt-Right online and expose their trolls. We need to understand their ideology and attack it furiously. We must figure out their tactics and online weapons, and expose them very publicly, in order to help others resist and return fire.

On the political front, we have no choice but to side with the Establishment, despite its corruption. I think we have a better chance of working with and influencing moderate Republicans and Democrats than we'll ever have with the Alt-Right.

At the moment, it's absolutely crucial that we push back against the anti-Establishment memes pouring out of the Far Right crusaders.

MisterSwig,

This thread has been my only introduction to this Alt-Right movement. Their ideas are not new ideas, but rather very old, in fact, ancient ideas. I agree with you that engaging such irrational persons in polemics would be futile. It's their tactical use of the internet that concerns me. If they are sophisticated troublemakers, launching their attacks via cyber-space, the damage to their victims could be severe, costing them their livelihoods, inducing fear, even unleashing the occasional follower-fanatic on an anti-life mission.

I still don't believe anything openly organized could last very long before they are investigated, infiltrated, and driven back to the proverbial shadow-world in which they now cower. Nonetheless, they have been reported in credible sources to have struck terror in the form of online harassment on a scale that would warrant police action; I don't know that nothing or anything is being done at this time, but I can imagine the FBI is aware of it. If you have the means to "fight back" I wouldn't discourage you, but it would be a job for someone with both the technical skills and connections to the federal Department of Justice, otherwise you may find yourself in violation of some illegal online practices.

And I don't believe it's necessary to side with anybody, "Establishment" or "anti-Establishment." That is, unless there is some connection to a formal investigation. In such a case, siding with the "Established" authorities would be best. And as I alluded to earlier, this begs the question: Will we accept new restrictions of internet freedom regardless of their intentions?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I will note this down as yet another failure to turn a malevolent-universer. How many of you Alt-Right trolls are working this board?

Also, I'm not falling for your "don't worry about the Alt-Right" meme. Even if most Americans were addicted to optimism, that doesn't preclude them from surrendering to the threats of the Alt-Right or falling victim to the movement's hopeful dream of a shiny new white America.

I am not a white nationalist but consider myself alt-right because I've considered myself so from the time when the term encompassed not just white nationalists but monarchists, those who are anti-democracy, also certain anti-feminists identified as such, etc. The way you are using the term, which is becoming more and more common today (mostly thanks to the media) but is not the original definition, is "alt-right = white nationalist".

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I am not a white nationalist but consider myself alt-right because I've considered myself so from the time when the term encompassed not just white nationalists but monarchists, those who are anti-democracy, also certain anti-feminists identified as such, etc. The way you are using the term, which is becoming more and more common today (mostly thanks to the media) but is not the original definition, is "alt-right = white nationalist".

Correct... I don't think white nationalism (a la stormfront, etc) is a part of the "alt-right" at all, actually.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I am not a white nationalist but consider myself alt-right because I've considered myself so from the time when the term encompassed not just white nationalists but monarchists, those who are anti-democracy, also certain anti-feminists identified as such, etc. The way you are using the term, which is becoming more and more common today (mostly thanks to the media) but is not the original definition, is "alt-right = white nationalist".

Dustin86,

While this is no great revelation, thank you for the clarification. Why do you believe you have the right to identify as Alt-Right, when there are positions which you disagree in their ideology?

Do you believe you have a right to an independence of mind, given the collectivism of Alt-Right ideology? Or to selectively choose an individualized "world view," for lack of a better term? Could you site something that differentiates your views from that of your typical Alt-Right person?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

While this is no great revelation, thank you for the clarification. Why do you believe you have the right to identify as Alt-Right, when there are positions which you disagree in their ideology?

Do you believe you have a right to an independence of mind, given the collectivism of Alt-Right ideology? Or to selectively choose an individualized "world view," for lack of a better term? Could you site something that differentiates your views from that of your typical Alt-Right person?

There is no single alt-right ideology. Like I said before, what unifies the alt-right is a malevolent universe premise and a negative view of human nature, a rejection of the Enlightenment view of human nature which is optimistic.

Link to post

Share on other sites

I am not a white nationalist but consider myself alt-right because I've considered myself so from the time when the term encompassed not just white nationalists but monarchists, those who are anti-democracy, also certain anti-feminists identified as such, etc.

So you willingly embraced a movement that welcomed white nationalists? You didn't get enough racists in the conservative or libertarian movements, so you kept stepping to the right until you found something more Nazi-like?

The Alt-Right may have started out as a mishmash of reactionary ideologies. But it's increasingly coalescing into a mob of hardcore white nationalists. That's why we aren't talking about the Alt-Right monarchists.

Besides, monarchism is perfectly compatible with white nationalism. The racists will be happy to provide you with a mystical authority for your absolute ruler. In fact, the mob at 4chan is already forming some weird religion around a god named Kek, from whom meme magic originates. They also refer to Trump as the God Emperor. Not sure how seriously all of it is meant to be taken. But there it is.

Maybe we should start calling it the white monarcho-nationalist movement. How's that?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

So you willingly embraced a movement that welcomed white nationalists? You didn't get enough racists in the conservative or libertarian movements, so you kept stepping to the right until you found something more Nazi-like?

Maybe we should start calling it the white monarcho-nationalist movement. How's that?

It wasn't like that. I've been part of the Alt-Right since the very beginning.

We were all declared "beyond the pale" by the "mainstream". We all kind of "found each other". It's not like we all hoarded around white nationalists. They found us.

Our strength is in our togetherness and interconnectedness, not in our supposed "internet-savviness". The Establishment's weakness is in its atomized individualism.

Share on other sites

In principle it's largely varying forms of monarchism or fascism then, if you mean non-mainstream non-leftist views that aren't pro-individual. It is a "sworn enemy" as far as not being compatible at all. I thought about it before and made a thread about it. (White supremacists are worst of all both factually and respect-wise, that might be a tangent). As far as I see, Alt-right has been co-opted by white supremacists, regardless of what it was before.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

So anybody who you decide is not "compatible" with you is your "sworn enemy", even if they offer you an olive branch?

By "at all" I mean there's virtually nothing compatible whatsoever about an alt-righter, even less than radical leftists. Whether an -individual- self-professed alt-righter has compatibilities is a different story. Being "not left" doesn't mean your political goals would at all be the same. I don't even see leftism per se as a threat as much as the deplorable aspects of the alt-right umbrella (i.e. white supremacists, and as far as your perspective Dustin, you should see them as ruining any possible inkling of rationality in alt-right thinking).

MisterSwig, if you think Epist is "shitposting", look at his earlier post in this thread.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I am not a white nationalist but consider myself alt-right because I've considered myself so from the time when the term encompassed not just white nationalists but monarchists, those who are anti-democracy, also certain anti-feminists identified as such, etc. The way you are using the term, which is becoming more and more common today (mostly thanks to the media) but is not the original definition, is "alt-right = white nationalist".

Conundrum for you to ponder: what if your monarch is a woman? Or a Jew? Or, even better, an ethnically Jewish, religiously Muslim, racially black, trans-gender woman? Would you consider her your Queen? It's not like it couldn't happen: most monarchies are hereditary, and whoever is first in line gets the throne, no matter their ethnicity, religion, race or sexual orientation.

In fact I predict that, if anything happens to William, and Harry ends up on the throne, that's about the kind of heir he'll spawn. He's a fun dude to say the least. I've seen the pictures.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I don't even see leftism per se as a threat as much as the deplorable aspects of the alt-right umbrella (i.e. white supremacists, and as far as your perspective Dustin, you should see them as ruining any possible inkling of rationality in alt-right thinking).

There really is no "grand poobah" of the alt-right. There really is nobody who gets to decide who gets to be in it and who doesn't.

White nationalists do give seem to give off an "ick" factor, but I don't believe it's because of this nonexistent "threat" coming from them -- it's because they're losers, they're social misfits, they're a giant punching bag, they provide an "enemy" for people to rally against. They're basically "Goldstein" from 1984 during the Two-Minutes Hate. Goldstein is somebody who died a long time ago, somebody who no longer has any relevance in anybody's life, but he is the one that people are presented with to rally in hate against, and to run into the arms of Big Brother (the personification of the Party) because of.

If you can watch this scene with these people's behavior again in your mind's eye, only replacing white nationalists up on that projector screen instead of "Goldstein", that's basically what our society is, what it has been at least since the time I've been born. And if you want to know why I've developed a malevolent view of the universe and a negative view of human nature, it's because of stuff exactly like that.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

So far, you've not presented any reason that anyone at an Objectivist chat site would take you seriously.

6 hours ago, Dustin86 said:

White nationalists do give seem to give off an "ick" factor, but I don't believe it's because of this nonexistent "threat" coming from them -- it's because they're losers, they're social misfits, they're a giant punching bag, they provide an "enemy" for people to rally against.

It sort of seems that you're saying that you sympathize with white-nationalists because they are "victimized" by mainstream popular sentiment. After reading the article about the journalist that was digitally harassed, along with his family, I hardly find such people worthy of anyone's sympathy. Prior to reading this, I regarded any neo-Nazi-types as the social misfits you've described them as -- exception being that I don't see them as victims, rather that they pose a threat as cyber-saboteurs. Aside from being held in low regard by most folks, how do they qualify as victims? And why would you wish to identify in any way with this collective of pariahs? Are you not being victimized enough already? By choosing solidarity with such losers, you voluntarily fall into the same category.

On the other hand, if there is something different in your beliefs from the typical Alt-Right person, I'd like to hear what you have to say. Supporting an ideology that favors ethnic cleansing would make you unpopular with most Americans, (and can you blame them?) The malevolent universe premise you hold does not necessarily make you anyone's "sworn enemy," although I speak for no one other than myself.

Anyhow, if you have a specifically different belief, make your most rational explanation on your interpretation of Alt-Right ideology, and while you're at it, explain why you believe that a rational egoist would benefit from your perspective. This is your chance to be persuasive.

Link to post

Share on other sites

MisterSwig, if you think Epist is "shitposting", look at his earlier post in this thread.

Can you explain what you mean?

I've read Epistemologue's first post twice now. What I see is someone with detailed knowledge of both the Alt-Right and Objectivism, someone who then argues that Objectivists need to continue interacting with Alt-Righters, because we need to explain how Objectivism can help them.

Folks, what we need to do is understand something about the hardcore Alt-Right mindset. They believe in the power of memes. Like genes in the physical realm, they think memes survive and replicate through person-to-person contact in the mental realm. Their primary goal, therefore, is to acquire and maintain intellectual contact with others and find ways to attach their memes to our most deeply held beliefs and cultural units. That is how they will infect us and turn us ideologically.

Now, I still don't know much about this memetic warfare stuff. Apparently the idea of memes was originated by Richard Dawkins in the '70s. And our intellectuals (civilian and military) have been trying to figure out how to "weaponized" memes for nearly two decades. It sure as hell looks like the Alt-Right has figured it out. They've got meme factories and distribution centers all over the Internet now, ranging from hardcore white nationalist chat caverns, to Republican pro-Trump Facebook profiles, who do nothing but collect and redistribute memes.

I think Objectivists will be able to resist the meme-slingers, because we are not a hollow, reactionary ideology. Our ideas are strong and grounded in reality. We can see through the bullshit coming our way, especially when we realize that at the heart of that bullshit is a racist mob.

I don't know if Epistemologue is Alt-Right. That's why I asked. I hope he'll answer. I'm perfectly willing to take him at his word for now.

Link to post

Share on other sites

You sound like you go on /pol/ too much yourself, considering the vocabulary you use. Then you call Epist alt-right. Are you trolling?

Did anyone here know that Dustin was Alt-Right before I returned to this forum? I'm trying to expose the Alt-Right. And to do that I have to understand them and figure out their vocabulary, ideology, and tactics. One tactic is to incite confusion and mistrust among the opposing group, thereby breaking down its confidence in being able to know friend from foe.

And since I exposed Dustin, the Alt-Right must change tactics. Now they will try to stir up confusion and in-fighting among real Objectivists, in an attempt to discredit me, who has an 800-post record of not being a troll. And when I decide that I've had enough of this crap, they will go after the next problematic Objectivist in line. And so on.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Did anyone here know that Dustin was Alt-Right before I returned to this forum?

It was clear as day, he stated his views. Virtually any post he makes gets rebuked. He hasn't been inciting mistrust, or used any of those psychological warfare tactics, so there's nothing to defend from. It's not a bannable offense to just disagree. If you want to expose people, this forum isn't the place for paranoia.

Dawkins idea of a meme is different by the way, Pepe the frog is a meme more like "marketing tool". You basically described the internet. The more militant alt-right is just using it for ideological ends.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

So far, you've not presented any reason that anyone at an Objectivist chat site would take you seriously.

It sort of seems that you're saying that you sympathize with white-nationalists because they are "victimized" by mainstream popular sentiment. After reading the article about the journalist that was digitally harassed, along with his family, I hardly find such people worthy of anyone's sympathy. Prior to reading this, I regarded any neo-Nazi-types as the social misfits you've described them as -- exception being that I don't see them as victims, rather that they pose a threat as cyber-saboteurs. Aside from being held in low regard by most folks, how do they qualify as victims? And why would you wish to identify in any way with this collective of pariahs? Are you not being victimized enough already? By choosing solidarity with such losers, you voluntarily fall into the same category.

On the other hand, if there is something different in your beliefs from the typical Alt-Right person, I'd like to hear what you have to say. Supporting an ideology that favors ethnic cleansing would make you unpopular with most Americans, (and can you blame them?) The malevolent universe premise you hold does not necessarily make you anyone's "sworn enemy," although I speak for no one other than myself.

Anyhow, if you have a specifically different belief, make your most rational explanation on your interpretation of Alt-Right ideology, and while you're at it, explain why you believe that a rational egoist would benefit from your perspective. This is your chance to be persuasive.

You misunderstand me - completely. I think that white nationalists are a negative for the alt-right. A big negative. I do not sympathize with them. However, they have no real power, and I cannot help notice the "socially useful role" that they provide in the Establishment narraitive and I cannot help but look down on people's "hatey-monkey" behavior at the "Two Minutes Hate" that is being erected by the Establishment on account of a group that has had no power since the 1950s.

The short answer to your questions is I was alt-right first. I was there from the very beginning. If white nationalists started using the term "Objectivist" would you be impelled by "decency" and "a moral duty to disassociate yourself from ethnic cleansers" to stop using the term "Objectivist"? Answer the question.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The short answer to your questions is I was alt-right first. I was there from the very beginning. If white nationalists started using the term "Objectivist" would you be impelled by "decency" and "a moral duty to disassociate yourself from ethnic cleansers" to stop using the term "Objectivist"? Answer the question.

The term, "Objectivist," has been in use for more than fifty years, long enough to identify an Objectivist with the writings of Ayn Rand. I suppose it's entirely possible that a loose organization of misanthropes could lay claim to Objectivist or any other title, but for now, that's not something I'm worried about. If it ever came to that, I would, for social purposes, identify as a rationalist, egoist, or assume some other identity appropriate to my intellectual persuasion. On the other hand, white racist organizations have been changing their label whenever it seems suitable, and it appears they're doing it again.

So, if I proceed on the assumption that your Alt-Right identity is in the past, why do you make this statement:

On 10/23/2016 at 7:19 PM, Dustin86 said:

There is a great deal that Objectivists can learn from Alt-Righters and vice versa.

If I could learn a great deal from Alt-Righters, what might that be? Did you learn any thing from the Alt-Right movement that benefited you? Please, answer this question:

On 10/23/2016 at 6:44 PM, Dustin86 said:

It wasn't like that. I've been part of the Alt-Right since the very beginning.

We were all declared "beyond the pale" by the "mainstream". We all kind of "found each other". It's not like we all hoarded around white nationalists. They found us.

Our strength is in our togetherness and interconnectedness, not in our supposed "internet-savviness". The Establishment's weakness is in its atomized individualism.

This suggests that you are in fact in league with Alt-Right-what-ever-it-is, and I've asked you several times to clarify the differing view you hold from others who identify as such, and you continue to evade. You favor a monarchy. OK. You believe in a malevolent universe. OK. Still, you find "strength in togetherness" or some sort of unity with this motley collective. So, for the umpteenth time, what makes you different from a neo-Nazi/white nationalist/Alt-Right/whatever?